Omar Antonio Lopez v. Walmart, Inc., et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

OMAR ANTONIO LOPEZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:26-cv-00160-RAH-JTA ) WALMART, INC., ET AL., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER On March 12, 2026, Omar Antonio Lopez, pro se, filed this action against the State of Alabama, Walmart, Inc., America’s Car-Mart, Inc., Hirotec America, Inc., Rocky Cowley, Michael Kyle and Michael Slovak concerning alleged “biohazard conditions” and “water denial.” (Doc. 1.) Lopez subsequently amended his complaint three times. (See doc. 5; doc. 30; doc. 33.) On June 22, 2026, upon review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Magistrate Judge recommended that this case be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 38.) On July 6, 2026, Lopez filed an objection. (Doc. 43.) When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Gopie, 347 F. App’x 495, 499 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). However, objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation must be sufficiently specific to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783-85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a recommendation is reviewed for clear error. /d. In his objection, Lopez says nothing about how the Magistrate Judge erred in her recommendation. Instead, Lopez broadly references the Defendants’ alleged racketeering activity concerning “account sharing” and references two other lawsuits he has recently filed in this District. This does not demonstrate error on the Magistrate Judge’s part, nor does it show how Lopez’s operative complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, upon an independent and de novo review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's Objection (doc. 43) is OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation (doc. 38) is ADOPTED; 3. All other relief is DENIED; 4. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice; and, 5. A final judgment will issue. DONE on this the 10th day of July 2026.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE